Strategy baseline survey Child Protection Technical Program September-November, 2015- data was collected in the field February, 2016- Report released World Vision Armenia © World Vision International Table of Contents 1 Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 5 2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 6 3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Study population and sample size .............................................................................................. 7 3.2 Study instrument ......................................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Field work ..................................................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Data management ....................................................................................................................... 8 4 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 9 4.1 Characteristics of study population ............................................................................................ 9 4.2 Child discipline ............................................................................................................................. 12 4.3 Child Discipline 2 .......................................................................................................................... 15 4.4 UNDERSTANDING OF CHILD RIGHTS ........................................................................................ 19 4.5 REPORTING ................................................................................................................................ 23 4.6 ACCESS TO SERVICES ....................................................................................................................... 27 4.7 ABILITY OF PARENTS OR CAREGIVERS TO PROVIDE ALL THE CHILDREN IN THE HOUSEHOLD, AGED 5‐18 YEARS, WITH IMPORTANT ITEMS ............................................................................................................................. 29 4.8 THE STRENGTHS OF ASSETS AND CONTEXTS IN WHICH CHILDREN AND YOUTH LIVE, LEARN AND WORK AS REPORTED BY CHILDREN .............................................................................................................................. 33 5 Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 34 5.1 Key findings ................................................................................................................................ 34 5.2 Study strengths and limitations ................................................................................................ 37 1 | Page * data for Aps are presented in weighted percents (weighted by AP population figures) i. Acknowledgements This report is a result of close collaboration between WV South Caucasus Strategy, Quality and Evidence Department, particularly Strategy coordinator Artak Saghatelyan and Child Protection Advisor Anna Aleksanyan. IPSC, CDF and Empirica coordinated strategy baseline data collection in cooperation with SC SQE Team. Evaluation team appreciates the works of those interviewers and data inputters, who conducted accurate and timely work in the field. Special thanks go to Liana Poghosyan, SC SQE Director for ongoing support and valuable feedback. ii. Affirmation Except as acknowledged by the references in this document to other authors and publications, the report enclosed herein consists of my own work undertaken in compliance with World Vision’s Learning through Evaluation with Accountability and Planning (LEAP) Evaluation Report Guidelines and requirements set in the Evidence building plan. Data collected throughout the evaluation process remains the property of the stakeholders described in this document. Information and data is used with their consent. February 2016 Abbreviations 2 | Page * data for Aps are presented in weighted percents (weighted by AP population figures) AP Area Program CDF Child Development Foundation CI Confidence Interval CP Child protection CP TP Child protection Technical program DHS Demographic Health Survey EBR Exclusive breastfeeding rate ECD Early Childhood Development ECDI Early Childhood development Index FY Financial Year GBG Go Baby, Go! IPSC Institute of Political and Sociological Consulting MEERO Middle East and Eastern Europe Office MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey R&R Recording and Reporting SI Strategic Indicator TA Technical Approach WVA World Vision Armenia MVC Most Vulnerable children MV HH Most vulnerable households R&R Reporting and referring Summary table of indicators # SI number Area and Indicator name Indicator 3 | Page * data for Aps are presented in weighted percents (weighted by AP population figures) value Outcome 1 Improved system and structures serving for the benefit of the vulnerable children 1 * Proportion of children, parent /caregivers who would report a case Children of child right violation 20.1% Caregivers 29.3 % 2 * Communities (incl. children) can identify, understand and respond Children adequately to violations of child rights in coordination/partnership 49.4% with local CP mechanisms Caregivers 3 52.4% * Increased % of children with access to community based services 4 * Increased involvement of the Church in CP (involvement in CPA/SSN) will be measured during "Caring for equality" project” baseline in FY 16 73.3% Outcome 2 Empowered families providing care and protection to community children especially the MV 5 * Proportion of parents or caregivers who used physical punishment 74.7% or abuse as a means of disciplining their children 6 % of parents/caregivers able to provide well for their children 64.1% % of community members(including teachers & other CP actors) who 7 think that child should not be beaten under any circumstances 67.4 % Outcome 3 Increased resilience of children to protect themselves and others 8 The strengths of assets and contexts in which children and youth live, 46 learn and work as reported by children Children are able to describe specific ways in which families and communities encourage them in their pursuit of information, activities 9 and relationships, which enable them to discover, grow in and experience God's love* will be measured during "Caring for equality" project” baseline in FY 16 4 | Page * data for Aps are presented in weighted percents (weighted by AP population figures) 1 Executive Summary WVA Child protection TP strategy baseline is designed to provide representative data both for all 14 APs and for national strategy. As well as, CP TP baseline evaluation included population based survey with quasi‐experimental design with two control sites for total of 2 target groups. The household survey was conducted in the World Vision Armenia in 182 targeted communities in seven marzes and 14 Area Programs (APs) of Armenia based on a representative sample. In total about 4,779 caregivers, 5398 12‐17 years old children and 336 Child protection actors from WV AP communities have been involved in baseline measurement. In addition to AP intervention communities the surveys with the same instruments have been conducted in 14 non‐AP communities (one community per AP) in order to serve as AP control site (in total 220 caregivers from 14 communities have been involved in control group) and 16 communities of Hrazdan region of Kotayk marz serving as second Marz level control site with purpose to control for the effect of external factors on key outcome indicators over the time (361 young people from 12‐18 age group, and 361 caregivers have been involved). Seven in ten children (74.7%) aged 6‐14 experience some form of psychological or physical punishment during the 30 days preceding the survey. Forty (39.7) percent of them experienced physical punishment. Meanwhile only 8.5 percent of respondents believed that children should be physically punished, indicating contradictory attitude and practices regarding children disciplining. Boys tend to experience violence more often than girls do. Urban children (72.3 percent) are more likely than rural children (67.7 percent) to experience any psychological aggression. Thus the vast majority of caregivers (67.4 percent) think that parents should not beat children under any circumstances. Every fifth respondent though thinks that it is reasonable to beat child in when he/she lies and every tenth admits that it is allowed if child goes out without permission. Other options such as arguing with parents, refusing doing homework and beating sibling do reach approval level of not more than 10%. Those who gave correct responses to suggested statements and questions from the perspective of child protection discipline consist 52.4% of surveyed caregivers. Inter AP distribution of answers is strikingly diverse which should be further explored. Noyemberyan index (24%) is nearly three times lower than Aparan and Talin (69%). Five out of six questioned survey participants told that they would not report case of child abuse if family member commits it. Nearly every second